Jesus had a wife?

The original U of Arizona dating was several centuries before Jesus, which could not be accurate, then in one part of the article it says the fragment is similar to others from 400-800 CE and then in another the ink is consistent with those from 400 BCE to 800 CE.I do not know of this Laurie Goodstein but she is an american reporter for an american news corporation so chances are she has no friggin clue what the hell she is reporting. Without having read the actual dating study being reported here I'm not so sure we can say what age range was actually determined.Then, again, I'm not sure it matters. The fragment is, apparently, way way old. That's the actual scientific jargon of papyrologists. I guess you can make an ologist from just about anything these days.In the deeper sense, does it really matter to any but the most misogynistic cults of religious zealots? Like the catholics and the protestants?I read somewhere once, maybe someone here can confirm this, but as I recall, in that culture at that time, any male in an honored profession such as carpenter would have been married by arrangement before his mid-twenties whether he want to or not. It was just their way. Since there is a total lack of any myths about Jesus's earlier life, if he really existed in that culture at that time, he most probably was married. Even as "god", or some close relation, there is the valid assumption that he would have fit in with the going culture just as did everyone else.Whether the papyrologists and the ancientinkyologists declare this fragment to be way way old instead of just way old won't really make any difference in this world anyway. Now, if the fragment spoke of Jesus's two older brothers, well then, that would have been something. Edited by AZPaul3, : title